Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

Bad idea to rein in regulators

These should be tough times for deregulators, who critics now link to a host of recent calamities: a massive oil spill, an economic collapse that has cost millions of jobs, countless food and toy recalls and repeated tragedies in mines and other workplaces.

Much of Congress’s activity over the past few years has been dedicated to cleaning up these messes — equipping agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission with the resources and laws they need to keep Americans safe.

Text Size

-

+

reset

OPINION

POLITICO 44

So why, in the past week alone, have House Republicans held four hearings attacking government regulations?

This rash of hearings is not just showmanship. This session, Congress will consider the REINS Act, which would require congressional approval of any major regulations before they could take effect. In effect, the bill would take important decisions about our health, safety and economy out of the hands of experts and put them in the hands of politicians beholden to corporate lobbyists and campaign contributors.

Few rules, however sound, would survive this special-interest gauntlet. The House is also due to vote on a rule that would require 10 House committees to investigate the agencies within their jurisdictions. These measures are nothing short of an attack on good government: an attempt to block government agencies from protecting our air, water, economy and lives.

The new House majority apparently wants more mayhem. Its strategy is to talk about the purported burdens of regulation on “job creators” — the large corporations that seem to outsource and downsize at will. House Republicans and their business allies bemoan the costs of regulations, fixating on a recent study claiming that regulations cost $1.75 trillion annually. This study, however, relies on flawed methodology, fails to disclose its calculations, overstates costs and completely ignores the other half of the equation: benefits.

Indeed, for all their talk of the costs of regulation, House Republicans would do well to recognize the benefits. The Office of Management and Budget publishes a yearly analysis of major regulations issued over the previous 10 years. Last year’s report found the costs ranged from $43 billion to $55 billion. The benefits ranged from $128 billion to $616 billion. That means that the benefits of regulations exceed the costs by 230 to 1,430 percent. That is an astonishing rate of return. It turns out that most regulation is so cost-effective that we should think of it as an investment.

Even though most regulations save money and protect U.S. lives and jobs, the new Republican majority seems bent on stymieing and repealing as many regulations as possible. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made news last month when he sent letters to 150 businesses and trade groups asking them which regulations they want revoked. This is akin to soliciting advice from foxes on how to build a henhouse — or perhaps how to carve a fox-size hole in the henhouse wall.

We hope that House Republicans remember the recent failures of deregulation and take a close look at regulations. They have a lot to learn.

What part of Ivy League educated leaders do you crazy teabaggers find so hard to understand? These people who make regulations have only our best interests at heart and have the education and training to always make the right decisions for us.

"Regulations save money". Does anybody other than a complete moron believe such nonsense? I mean, really, c'mon. Every addition to the cost of a business, whether in taxes, "fees" or regulations results in fewer jobs, lower wages and/or more expensive product. Why? BECAUSE BUSINESSES DON'T PAY TAXES. WE DO. Mr. Arkush, may I suggest that you get out of your little Ivory Tower there in the Beltway and come out to the Midwest somewhere and start a small business? Run it for a year or two, making a profit, keeping your employees paid, all while keeping the Employment Prevention Agency and OSHA off your back, then get back to us. Because you are obviously an utterly clueless human being.

Even though most regulations save money and protect U.S. lives and jobs, the new Republican majority seems bent on stymieing and repealing as many regulations as possible

Where is there ANY evidence that this is true?? Exactly there is none. Just restating this obvious frabrication does not make it so. The reality is that the democratic congress was hellbent on destroying and demonizing our corporations that provide the majority of jobs. So wreckless were they that they past multiple 2000 page bills without even knowing what is in them. Thank God the Republicans won last election and are implementing some practical deregulation that will allow industry to begin rehiring again. But we really need another election cycle to sweep out the filth, that put these heinous job killing regulations in place, including Obama.

Any regulation that does not help , hurts. congress creates a law often without regard for how this law is to be carried out .The administration puts a dept. on it to enforce the law(regulate and define the applications). They go overboard because they are covering their butts from congress who goes after them for not enforcing the law. This is obviously a balancing act. Leaving it to the states creates other unfair advantages. I think we have the best run country in the world in need of incessant tweaking. period.

You repubs love cutting things you do not understand, in your thinking, if you do not get it, cut it. But that is the issue, you cut regulating of Wall Street and we see how well that worked and now you want cut food safety and EPA. So, you do not get enough lead from China products, now your going to get it from the US, in the food and water. Why not bring back DDT, leaded gas, and lead in paint, just to name a few. That is what the repubs are going to do for the US, killing off the poor and middle class so they can get richer. The repubs are going to make the US, one big toxic wastes site, and for what, MONEY.

I suspect the metrics used were devised to provide their predetermined results. What we have seen , and are seeing from the EPA is astounding. Democrats couldn't get enough of their own members in the senate to support Cap & Trade, despite having a short-lived 'super-majority', that they are now relying on a backdoor approach of bypassing the voters to regulate it into existance.

They do not give a rap about the hardship this will impose on all voters. Cap & Trade will result in across the board price increases for everything we buy.

Voters also saw the game the EPA played with the Clean Water Act. Just removed the word 'navigable', and poof, they now control all water in the US.......including mud puddles & farmers ponds.

What part of Ivy League educated leaders do you crazy teabaggers find so hard to understand? These people who make regulations have only our best interests at heart and have the education and training to always make the right decisions for us.

Ivy League Harvard has their own regulation on ROTC. NO ROTC! And, is it really in our best interests to be defenseless? We'd all be better off without Harvard and Federal Regualtions!

Even though most regulations save money and protect U.S. lives and jobs, the new Republican majority seems bent on stymieing and repealing as many regulations as possible. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made news last month when he sent letters to 150 businesses and trade groups asking them which regulations they want revoked. This is akin to soliciting advice from foxes on how to build a henhouse — or perhaps how to carve a fox- hole in the henhouse wall.

The banking crisis was caused by too many federal regulation. And how is using regulations to shut down the gulf and Alaska from oil drilling saving money and protecting jobs? And how are the ethonal regulations saving consumers money? And how is the EPA regulation which stops half of California from being irrigated saving anyone money? And the federal regulation I'd like rolled back are the ones that have caused the widening of I-93 from the Mass border to Manchester to be stopped for 10 years now.

David Arkush is the Director of Congress Watch. He joined Public Citizen in January 2008 after working as a staff attorney at Public Justice, where he litigated civil rights, environmental, and consumer cases, primarily in the areas of federal preemption of state law, private standing under consumer protection statutes, and binding mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts. Prior to working at Public Justice, David taught in the Appellate Litigation Program at Georgetown University Law Center, served as the Fuchsberg Fellow at Public Citizen Litigation Group, and clerked for the Honorable R. Lanier Anderson, III, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Before clerking, David worked for the private public-interest law firm Adkins, Kelston & Zavez and, before law school, he served as Statewide Coordinator of Missouri Voters for Fair Elections.

WHAT REGULATORS? THIS COUNTRY IS OUT OF CONTROL WITH GANGSTERS ON WALL ST AND THE NON GENTILE CONTROLLED FED RESERVE, WE ARE CONTINUING ON THE PATH TO TOTAL RUIN. JAIL THE WALL ST HUSTLERS WHO CAUSED THIS RUIN AND DIS BAN THE FED AS WELL AS SLASH GOVERNMENT PAYROLLS BY 40% PLUS BRING OUR TROOPS HOME WOULD BE A GOOD START

Only from inside the delusional Beltway, would a clarion call come for more big government, regulation. As if one could regulate the American economy into prosperity. As if the American people are suffering from to much liberty. As if there is no economic cost to regulation. As if the American people didn't add 63 Republican seats to the House. Even "The One" bureaucrats "have been waiting for" has disingenuously called for reduction in regulation. But please, let Progressives, bureaucrats, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Democrat party have the courage of their convictions, to run on a platform of bigger government, more bureaucrats controlling the lives of citizens, and more, more more regulations. That will ensure massive Tea Party gains and a President Palin in 2012.